I have a theory that the new generation of Democrats who were elected in the 2006 and 2008 elections are different culturally from the older, longer-serving members. What really happened is that after the fiasco in 2004, the base of the Democratic Party exerted itself and started to fight back forcefully against the Bush administration. The main manifestation of this was the emergence of a liberal blogosphere that backed candidates who shared their values and went after Democrats who were enabling the Republicans’ radical agenda. So, it doesn’t surprise me that the newer members of the Senate want to fight Republican obstructionism much more forcefully than the older ones. Many of them were motivated to run for the Senate in the first place by their disgust with Republicans. Fighting them openly and aggressively brought them victory and success.
The older Democrats seem to keep pining for a long dead age when the Senate operated with bipartisanship. I actually think there is evidence that the period of relatively low level party-polarization that existed between 1930-1970 was an anomaly.
The most obvious cause of this was the civil rights struggle, which pitted socially conservative segregationist southerners and urban machine Democrats in the North within the same party. It was an unnatural alliance that couldn’t last in the absence of segregation. However, there is also an argument that increasing income inequality is to blame.
Either way, the culture and rules of the Senate that developed in the post-war years made sense because it was a period of low party polarization, but those rules don’t work anymore and need to be changed if the government is going to work effectively.
I think that you are right that some newer members, but not all, want to fight Republican obstructionism. I would be more convinced if you had identified the newer members and what each of them had done to fight Republican obstructionism.
The chart, however, is very interesting. It shows that the distance between the parties is the greatest in the 130 year history covered. It also shows that the distance between the parties decreased between 1900, reaching its lowest point during the Great Depression and World War II. And did not resume steep polarization until 1989. I would argue that some of the dampening influence on polarization was from the progressive reform movements and the push for women’s right to vote. The “good government” movement created a culture that despised backroom deals and vicious attacks. It also put corporations under the microscope and punished politicians who seemed too close to corporate “vested interests” — although general corporate interests could be pursued.
But in the midst of this, the Senate became relatively more polarized during the period from 1951 to 1967. There are two trends going on here–the use of the Senate as a platform for anti-communist Cold War and conservative rhetoric and the surge in the Civil Rights movement.
The breakaway in 1989 is signalled, I think, by the Willie Horton ad and the growth of “scorched earth” politics in the Republican Party. And one would have thought that Democratic triangulation would have dampened that, but instead the Republicans have moved faster and further to define themselves as “different” — for that is what distance between the parties really is about after all.
Just because the beginning of the chart looks like the end of the chart does not mean that the middle of the chart was an anomaly. I think that we are ripe for a resurgence of progressive “good government” values that calls bullshit on the artificial creation of controversy, superficial and irrelevant wedge issues, and phony difference that the Republican Party has engaged in for twenty years. Congress is very nearly running off the rails from it. And too many Democrats are still in duck and cover mode. Even the new folks in the Senate – Kaufman, Hagan, Bennet to name three.
the Roll Call message mentions obvious members like Whitehouse, Sanders, Merkley, and Brown, as well as less obvious members like Webb, Warner, and Shaheen.
It doesn’t mention Franken, but he’s been very forceful behind the scenes.
Webb has stabbed us on the back on a few counts now.
That said he’s still better than most of the other pathetic Dems. I live in fear that the older members will infect the newer with their cowardice. I will always wonder if that’s a version of what Lieberman did to Obama when he was his protege.
And he sure is much better on most everything that was George Allen.
It really takes off with the election of Reagan. It just took a while to ignite.
Interesting about the chart claiming we are the most polarized in 130 years. I feel like I always read that the 1892 and 1896 election years were some of the most polarized in US history. After all, Karl Rove’s political idol is Mark Hanna, who was William McKinley’s campaign manager.
Still, it seems hard to imagine that any elections could have been more polarized than those leading up to the Civil War.
Notice that the 1850s are not on the chart. But I am not sure that it was polarization between the parties. In 1860, you had a split in the Democratic party between Stephen Douglas and John Breckinridge–plus a third party that pulled 13% of the vote (the Constitution Union Party). Lincoln won with 40% of the popular vote. In 1856, there were three parties, as in 1852. The polarization was regional more than on the basis of party.
That’s a good point which I hadn’t considered. It’s hard to compare that era with most of the times listed on the chart, given how spread out and disconnected the country was back then.
And as you note, the party system was very different (and in major transition, e.g. with the rise of the Republicans) back then too.
I find that the most anachronistic of our caucus are Lincoln and Bayh, both elected in 1998. Even allowing for ideological and geographical differences, they seem like they operate in a totally different universe. And that’s because they were elected, ie, when they themselves were at the top of their political game in 1998. They are senators from a different era and if they can’t adapt, they have to go, either on their own terms (like Bayh) or forced out (like Lincoln).
Would have responded to you with my comment below, but it hadn’t posted yet.
Yeah, in a way seems like they’re evolutionary dead-ends falling by the wayside. Same with Harold Ford, Jr. – his mistake was missing his electoral window by about a decade. And remember that both Ford and Bayh harbored serious Presidential ambitions.
Yea, I think 2006-2012 (2010- Reid gone, Lincoln gone; 2012- Lieberman gone) will be seen as a period of significant realignment for our caucus. I think its worthwhile to note that the Republican party has already completely transformed its caucus, I’d say roughly between 2000 and 2008, purging their moderates, adding in a few extremely far right crazies like Coburn and Demint, and generally establishing their caucus as a “right wing” party, not a “center-right” party as it was in the entire post war period.
SO in many respects we’re late to the game, playing catch up with the Republican party on creating a disciplined caucus. I don’t think we’ll ever match the type of discipline they have on the right, but getting rid of senators like Lincoln and Lieberman who are willing to not just vote against the party (which is fine) but actively obstruct and maneuver against the party is going to be a great thing not just for our party, but for democracy in general.
Thanks. Yeah, the GOP was definitely ahead of us on the disciplined caucus thing. I think you’re probably right too that it’s easier for the right-wing to maintain party discipline – something about that mindset that makes them more amenable to authoritarian, top-down rule.
That said, I think the GOP may have screwed the pooch by going too far right. The nation supports progressive ideas on the merits and the current Republican caucus (and base) is intractably opposed to a lot of them. I keep coming back to immigration: I think a lot of GOP members are simply unable to support anything resembling humane immigration reform, and it is just going to kill them at the polls for a generation.
In my optimistic moments I agree with you and am in a way I think the whole tea party/ HCR/ scott brown thing was a huge blessing, as it pushed the GOP further away from the mainstream. Also, demographics favor us so that assuming Obama can win in 2012, by 2016, the makeup of the elctorate will be greatly in our favor for whoever comes next.
But a few things make me think that’s all a fantasy:
“… Obama will never, ever, stop believing the GOP is acting in good faith. I think until you do that, you’re always fighting with one arm tied behind your back.”
Obama does NOT believe the GOP is acting in good faith. To cite one example, his retort to Cantor the other day at the summit. But he always speaks AS IF the Republicans were acting in good faith. It’s a rhetorical stance. That is quite a different thing. He’s giving them more than enough rope to hang themselves. And he’s driving the GOP bananas, because they are unable to make him lose his cool, while they never had any cool to lose.
“So unless the dems figure out how to manage the new dynamics of GOP obstruction, then they’re going to be replaced … ” Good point, and I think they ARE figuring it out. You can tell by the way they are now handling the HCR bill. The real problem is that the “Rule of 60” in the senate makes obstruction too easy.
The Dem Senators elected from the very late 80’s through the 1990’s also came up during what was arguably the peak of Republican political-psychological dominance of the electorate. That’s when a lot of the false tropes we suffer from today – e.g. America is a center-right nation, Democrats are congenitally weak and incompetent, liberal is a four-letter word, etc. – really came to full flower. Some of the worst centrist troublemakers are from that time:
That said, Boxer, Schumer, Dorgan, Wyden, Reed, Murray and Feingold were all also elected during that period. So maybe my argument doesn’t carry much water.
Speaking of those latter folks, why doesn’t Jack Reed get talked up more often? He seems like a fab Senator.
I think we’re going to see President Obama getting more feisty as the election gets closer. I think the days of reaching out to the republicans is coming to an end. I hope, anyway. He’s good when he’s in campaign mode.
Right. He’s starting to get into that, “Look, I don’t have time for this crap,” mode. And indeed he does NOT have time for this crap, and neither do the rest of us. So he’s gonna have a good wind at his back. Really, fu¢k the Tea Party, their influence has been greatly exaggerated by our wonderful media.